Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things. If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future? And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.

Everyone has a few screwed up things happen to them at some point in their life. BFD. Like I said, the prelaw thing likely had nothing to do with racism and the paralegal thing probably didn't either. So 2, count 'em, 2 screwed things. I can see why that would greatly affect this poor, tortured soul...

But, that's the sort of thought process I can see at work in most Harvard bound/attending folks on here. "Someone was mean to me when I was 10 and it was such an injustice that forever tainted my life!". Lollercoaster.

For the record, this is the kind of thing I meant when I talked about a friend dropping you--"someone was mean to me." That's substantively different in both kind and degree from the kind of racism Who? experienced and discussed (EVEN if you want to just limit it to the two times even you admit were racism), and all I was saying is that it's intellectually dishonest for you to equate the two. Someone being mean to you when you are 10 is someone being mean to you when you are 10. Someone telling you what Who's friend said is racism, not meanness. Different. Not the same.

Not that hard.

If you want to talk screwed-up *&^%, then we can. And if you think people should just shake off, move on, get over it, whatever, the truly screwed-up *&^% (death of your mother as an 11 year old, or being raped at the age of 7, to use but two experiences of two of my very best friends), then that's your own scary denial/burying-*&^% complex. "Yeah, my mom died when I was a child. Whatever. I got over it." That's...well, in my opinion, that's not a healthy way to live your life. And it's almost never true, anyway.

But you're the one who lowered the stakes, as it were, by making it about "mean"ness. Your word.

And I'm sorry, you weren't denying that Who? was a peer, were you? On what possible ground would you dispute that?

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

What a strange way of seeing things. If I get hit by a car and I sue the driver, am I allowing my life to be dictated by the past or am I moving on and dictating my future? And I am not trying to suggest that this is analogous, so please don't bother arguing that point.

And it's not analogous. You're within your rights to sue the driver, but you shouldn't let the fact you got hit mean that your life is forever altered by it. Even if you get seriously screwed up in said car accident, you take you cane and hobble your way on down the road. That, or you spend your life rolling out of the way anytime a car comes within 15 feet of you.

I already said it wasn't, but I imagine for different reasons.

What if by some strange turn of events, you get hit by cars over and over again?

I was just reinforcing the point.

If you're continually getting hit by cars, that probably has more to do with you than the other cars.

Indeed. You either let your life be dictated by the past, or you move on and begin to dictate your future.

...

except that it still happens.

And that's why you keep soldiering through. There is no "win" point in the game.

well, i'm not so sure about the bolded.

However, it seems quite unenlightened to indicate that no one ever needs any help from society when society is limiting opportunity. It doesn't seem very fair, does it?

Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity. Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups. So, several million years ago. Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting. Congratulations.

But you're not planning on addressing the other instances Who? talks about. I see.

Everyone has a few screwed up things happen to them at some point in their life. BFD. Like I said, the prelaw thing likely had nothing to do with racism and the paralegal thing probably didn't either. So 2, count 'em, 2 screwed things. I can see why that would greatly affect this poor, tortured soul...

But, that's the sort of thought process I can see at work in most Harvard bound/attending folks on here. "Someone was mean to me when I was 10 and it was such an injustice that forever tainted my life!". Lollercoaster.

For the record, this is the kind of thing I meant when I talked about a friend dropping you--"someone was mean to me." That's substantively different in both kind and degree from the kind of racism Who? experienced and discussed (EVEN if you want to just limit it to the two times even you admit were racism), and all I was saying is that it's intellectually dishonest for you to equate the two. Someone being mean to you when you are 10 is someone being mean to you when you are 10. Someone telling you what Who's friend said is racism, not meanness. Different. Not the same.

Not that hard.

If you want to talk screwed-up *&^%, then we can. And if you think people should just shake off, move on, get over it, whatever, the truly screwed-up *&^% (death of your mother as an 11 year old, or being raped at the age of 7, to use but two experiences of two of my very best friends), then that's your own scary denial/burying-*&^% complex. "Yeah, my mom died when I was a child. Whatever. I got over it." That's...well, in my opinion, that's not a healthy way to live your life. And it's almost never true, anyway.

But you're the one who lowered the stakes, as it were, by making it about "mean"ness. Your word.

And I'm sorry, you weren't denying that Who? was a peer, were you? On what possible ground would you dispute that?

First, and most importantly, can we please just call Who? the OP or put his name in quotes. It makes for a much more readable post. Starts to become one of those "Who's on first" things.

Anyway, now we're actually getting to some good, concrete examples of screwed up *&^%. Yeah, you get over it, or you don't. The person with the dead mother and the rape victim can still lead perfectly normal lives, if they get past the screwed up *&^%. That, or they can spend the rest of their lives being shell shocked in the corner. Choice is theirs. At least they have something to complain about and that they can say changed them. Someone calling you a name when you're a kid is worlds away. There was someone I remember seeing on LSN last year that had good, but not killer, numbers. They also had a line about their parents dying when they were 12 or something. They got into all their schools as far as I can recall. I was fine with that. That's the sort of person that could use a bump. The person that gets called a few names here and there, meanwhile, seems to kind of pale in comparison. I thank ye for basically making my argument for me.

OP isn't a peer. OP can be a peer when they actually start law school. Until then, OP is just anyone else that almost has or already holds a BA.

Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity. Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups. So, several million years ago. Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting. Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity. Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups. So, several million years ago. Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting. Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example. If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up. Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this. We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation.

Finally, people aren't "limited". Society can, however, limit opportunity. Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist. :!

Have we seen any evidence to indicate there's ever a definite winning point anywhere in life? I mean, the best you can hope for is to retire well off and have a decent family, maybe leave some kind of legacy. And right about the time you get all that sorted out, you die from old age, death usually being a pretty clear "lose" point.

Society limits everyone's opportunities all the time. Well, unless you're a certain recent president, then it seems to insulate you from your poor decisions. But anyway, at what point did it become a social responsibility to help "limited" people up? What ever happened to the concept of people helping themselves up? URMs don't need "help" getting into good law schools, they need to do the same thing non-URMs do; get a better GPA and a better LSAT, both of which are entirely doable. In such an easily remedied situation, there's no need for help, just harder work.

There may not be winning point in any given life, but it strikes me that a winning point in societal life is that all people are equally deserving of rights and opportunity. Both under the law and inside our heads.

It became a social responsibility to help people as soon as we started living in groups. So, several million years ago. Hard work doesn't help if the opportunity is not there.

Furthermore, your use of "limited" is entirely insulting. Congratulations.

I agree. And doesn't URM bumps thwart that very goal?

Depends on at what scale your looking at. Yeah, everyone is dependent on everyone else to live in society (well, there's probably a few woodsmen out there that would dispute this, but odds are they won't be jumping in here), but I'm not talking about the fabric of society here. I'm talking about feeling compelled to drag other people up. Your talking about the net, which I think we all agree is a good thing. I'm talking about the ladder, where the dispute seems to be if everyone can climb it on their own, or if they need someone to pull them up. I'm of the opinion that if you can't climb on your own power, you're best left behind.

Thank ye, I try. If you're going to be "limited" by society, then aren't you one of the "limited"? Seems pretty spot on to me.

How would providing the same opportunity to people who may not otherwise be able to obtain it not work.

Re: ladder example. If the ladder doesn't go all the way up, you can't use it to climb up. Thus, we need a way to make sure that everyone is able to get to the same level the ladder goes to. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about this. We live in a meritocracy, yes, but its only part of the equation.

Finally, people aren't "limited". Society can, however, limit opportunity. Try using it as verb next time, rather than an adjective, and maybe everyone who reads this won't think you're completely racist. :!

Too late.

URM's are "working harder"...harder than you will ever know. Non- URM's are either too stupid to get it or are complete barbarians who continue to lie about the conditions URM's live under. It's one or the other. The alternative is to believe that we are inferior, which is really what they are saying.

Going to college with nothing to worry about except studying, playing handball and an occasional part-time pizza or barista gig is not the same thing as going to college as a typical Black or Mexican student.

Half of the time, u have attended grossly inferior schools, to begin with, putting you behind the eight-ball in terms of acclimation, whether u have performed well or not. Then, there are always administrators and professors with hidden agendas, namely to prove that u are undeserving of your admission to the school, so ur at a disadvantage academically, right out of the gate. Then there's the assimilation to the majority culture on white campuses, and the subtle racism that exists there. The sarchastic way in which financial aid officers and other administrators communicate with u (b/c of ur ethnicity) can take a toll on u.

Then there's ur home life, the one in which the majority of ur relatives have not gone to college expect you to deal with the typical distraction of hearing about a close death (family or friend), often by unnatural causes, at least once per month, work full-time or almost full-time, commute back and forth between ur messed up community and school, and babysit ur siblings and clean up the house when u get home, b/c u come from a single-parent home and ur mom cannot afford to hire a housecleaner or babysitter. This all happens before u crack ur books open.

On top of that, ur white and Asian peers, who assume u to be inferior, (from day one) shun u as a participator in group projects, so when in-class partnering happens or study-groups are formed, u are often one of the last students picked, if u are picked at all. Therefore, this diversity initiative, the one which resulted in ur admission (at least to a small degree), ironically, does not benefit u or the other students, who mostly flock to "their own".

Then, there's the classism within the Black and Mexican campus communities, which centers around the rich or well-off Blacks and Latinos, the fraternities and sororities, and the athletes. The porrer ethnic students, unless they are exceptionally gorgeous females, typically are not invited to social events, and parties. Sure, they can join the BSU and attend meetings, but they certainly won't be riding to parties in joe-jock's BMW (the one his already NBA'd brother or former high-school teammate bought him) on Friday nights.

URM's...true URM's, not just people who have the skin color, are outcast from all of the sects on their campuses. And if they are left to fend for themselves academically and socially, while carrying the burdens of their home and home communities to their campus, while also dealing with the pressures of getting acclimated to being a "regular student" (after hailinmg from an inferior school system), those problems become heightened and distracting.

Big ups! to any URM who makes it...who gets through all the BS, makes the honor roll/dean's list, graduates with a B+ average or better, gets over a 150 LSAT and gets into to law school. These idiots who want to pretend things are equal, that we all have the same chances, that we live in a democracy, are either liars or barbarians. Even after 911, they still don't, as we say, "get it".

They are born with natural advantages, and benefit from them every time they walk out of their homes. But, someday, they will be forced to get it. Count on that.